Legitimate public concern

Back in 2019, the Philippine government launched the fuel-marking program (FMP) aimed at combatting oil smuggling into the country.

Fuel marking is the process of marking imported and refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene but excluding LPG, crude oil, aviation gas and Jet A-1, using a sophisticated, unreplicable marker after taxes and duties have been paid.

The implementation of the fuel-marking program is among the key provisions of Republic Act 10963 or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Act which made marking of fuel products, whether imported or manufactured in the Philippines mandatory beginning September 2019.

The Department of Finance mandated its two attached agencies, namely the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), as the lead implementing agencies to execute and oversee fuel marking in depots, vessels, tank trucks and other fuel-transporting vehicles, and the fuel testing in refineries and their attached depots and retail stations.

Meanwhile, the consortium of SGS Philippines and SICPA SA, a Switzerland-based company, was commissioned to implement the fuel-marking program, supplying the marker used, under a five-year contract.

Petroleum products found without the official fuel marker or not containing the required level are slapped with duties and taxes, including fines and penalties, and may be confiscated and forfeited, with the owners facing criminal charges.

According to a report from the joint venture of SGS and SICPA SA, the government generated P1.028 trillion in taxes over five years under the fuel-marking program, with a total of 89.35 billion liters of fuel marked. There were also 84 apprehensions and 21 fuel smuggling cases filed, including a conviction for illegal fuel trading.

The BOC attributed the increase in its 2025 tax revenues to the sustained FMP, as collections from fuel duties and taxes amounted to P247.12 billion, a 1.9-percent increase compared to 2024.

Fuel marking basically involves using low concentrations of dyes or molecular markers which are injected on fuel products. The government spent P0.06884 per liter as fuel-marking fee during the first year of implementation while oil companies shouldered the cost from the second to the fifth year.

The original five-year contract, covering 119 billion liters of fuel, is set to expire middle of this year and the DOF has begun negotiations with SICPA SA for its unsolicited proposal calling for a P13.44-billion extension of the FMP.

There is no question about the fact that the FMP has helped reduce fuel smuggling and that it has generated much-needed revenues for the government. But before signing another agreement, the government should answer a question every Filipino has a right to ask: has the marker being added to our fuel been independently tested and proven safe?

Recent controversies in Kenya involving fuel markers supplied by SICPA have raised concerns about halogenated compounds allegedly detected in marked fuels, prompting calls for independent investigations and regulatory review. These halogenated compounds are considered ozone depleting substances and dangerous to humans.

The Consumers Federation of Kenya in April raised alarm over alleged harmful contaminants in the country’s fuel supply chain. COFEK in a statement said that it commissioned an international accredited facility, Conti Testing Laboratories, to analyze fuel samples drawn from Kenya’s supply chain and confirmed the presence of dangerous compounds in the samples tested.

The group revealed that unmarked domestic fuel samples reportedly tested clean, a finding that investigators say points to a direct link between the contamination and the SICPA SA fuel marking used in the country’s system.

SICPA reportedly marks over 60 billion liters of petroleum products per year globally.

COFEK warned that the presence of carcinogenic halogenated bromides in fuel constitutes a serious public health emergency requiring immediate regulatory intervention and independent verification of all fuel marking chemicals in use. Brominated organic compounds are linked to cancer risks and also cause endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, liver damage, metabolic disorders like obesity and diabetes and immune suppression affecting natural killer cells and T-cell function, according to research findings.

According to the report by Kenyans.co.ke, while Kenyans do not necessarily interact directly with fuel, exposure to potentially harmful chemical compounds can still occur through everyday activities such as inhaling fuel vapors at petrol stations or breathing in vehicle exhaust emissions.

COFEK has sued SICPA before the High Court in Nairobi in May for allegedly using fuel markers containing chemicals harmful to vehicles, public health and the environment, even as it sought a permanent ban on SICPA SA and SGS from operating in Kenya’s fuel sector. It also called on its Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority to immediately suspend the fuel-marking program, recall fuel in circulation, test for contaminants and publish the full chemical composition of the marker system used in Kenya.

SICPA, however, countered that its fuel markers even comply with the European Union’s strict Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals regulations. It said that in the product’s continuous use for up to a decade across 10 different markets in Europe, there is no documented harm. It also said the markers have been tested by internationally accredited laboratories including Eurofins and Socotec, and that regulatory bodies worldwide including EPRA apply stringent selection criteria and pre-approval testing.

If questions have been raised elsewhere about the safety of the fuel marker supplied by SICPA, then our own government should conduct its own independent assessment before extending the agreement, spearhead testing by internationally recognized laboratories and local scientific institutions to evaluate the marker itself and emissions resulting from combustion and publicly disclose the results.

If the marker is proven safe, then well and good. It will improve confidence in the FMP and justify its continuation. But if it is not, then our government will have the opportunity to address the problem before entering into another long-term commitment.

There is nothing wrong about raising revenues but public safety should come first.

For comments, email at [email protected]